| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 111.5

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the AHR online. About 368 words from this article are provided below; about 659 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the American Historical Association, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time. AHA members can go to the AHA individual membership section to locate their member numbers.
If you are not a member of the American Historical Association, you can:: • Join the AHA and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the American Historical Review.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the American Historical Review (104.3-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the American Historical Review.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 111.5 | The History Cooperative

Book Review

Europe: Early Modern and Modern

James R. Farr. A Tale of Two Murders: Passion and Power in Seventeenth-Century France. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. 2005. Pp. xiv, 225. $21.95.
James R. Farr situates readers in the city of Dijon, Burgundy, France, as witnesses to a criminal inquiry from 1639 to 1643: Philippe Giroux (a président à mortier, Parlement of Dijon) was accused of murdering his cousin, Pierre Baillet (président, Chambre des Comptes), and his valet, last seen entering Giroux's house (September 1638). The influential Giroux family, nobles of the robe and clients of Henry II de Bourbon, prince of Condé, governor of Burgundy (first cousin of Louis XIII), figured in the investigation begun six months later (March 1639). The scrupulous Lantin inquiry found no eyewitnesses, murder weapon, or body, and hence made no arrest; but Lantin was dismissed. The zealous Millière-Jacquot inquiry (1640–1643) led to the arrest and imprisonment of Giroux (1640–1643); yet that dossier fell short on the same evidentiary fronts.	1
What was the evidence? Motive: Giroux's affair with Marie Fyot (Baillet's wife), which some linked to the death of his own wife, Marie Le Goux de La Berchere (1636), was not proven. Opportunity: Baillet was seen entering Giroux's house (1638) but may have left later to meet creditors, or travel to Italy (as some heard say). Circumstantial evidence: this indirect evidence requiring speculation was not sufficient to obtain a murder conviction (by procedural rules). Concrete evidence: there was no direct evidence—two eyewitnesses, or a confession from the accused—that rules required. Forensic proofs: the proof most vital to convict for murder, a dead body, was missing. At this critical juncture, with the prosecution stymied (1643), a tip from Pierre Saumaise de Chasans (conseiller in the Parlement), sworn enemy of Giroux, led to the discovery of two sacks of bones. The father of the accused, Benoît Giroux, admitted hiding the sacks after someone threw them over his garden wall three months earlier. Still, an inspection of bones and bits of clothing did not identify the men, or connect the bones with murder, or tie Giroux to the bones or murder. Departures from procedure were troubling as well.	. . .

There are about 659 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.